I've been studying the use of complementary therapies in palliative care for a research project at Uni. I've been looking at how these often clinically unproven therapies are being integrated into conventional medical care for the dying, the reasons for it and the benefits of it e.t.c.

One of the things I've been up to is watching a therapist give reiki treatments to patients. I started talking to the therapist afterwards about the 'energy body' and if she can see it. She says she just feels the energy, but cannot see it.

I personally would like to believe that we each have an aura or 'energy body', but at the same time I don't like buying into things without a healthy dose of scepticism also. So I was wondering what you guys all think...

If anyone also wants to argue for or against auras, or give their personal experiences with 'energy', I'm interested in whatever you guys have to say.

However Barbara is very much to on the extreme end of the spectrum, being driven by religious and financial reasons to disregard proper scientific methodology.

i honestly dont see how you can come to such a conclusion so rapidly, jeff. i am left presuming that you did not research into the site or her past enough to actually see that this has been, and continues to be, at the leading edge of scientific research of the Human Energy Field in the US and Europe. Please do a bit more reading before presenting your opinions in such a strong manner. perhaps you just got carried away, and i can understand that... i find it a lot of fun to have a good rant... but its good to know when you are ranting, too.. haha.

I'm really not ranting, that's what the plants thread is for. What I'm saying is that this woman really isn't a good scientist. It can be confusing to non-scientists to explain how we appraise each others work, so I left it out of my original post, but i'll go into a bit more depth here. When a scientist does some work, they write it up and submit it a science journal, who employ experts who read it over to judge whether it's been done well, or is garbage. Some journals are commonly known to have rubbish judges who let everything through, so serious scientists ignore them. If a scientists work gets published in a serious journal, then we can consider it a serious piece of work unless someone demonstrates it otherwise. It's not a perfect system, but it works. Babara doesn't do that, so the legitimacy of her work is suspect.

Written by: shen

Written by: shen

its my personal opinion that everybody is capable of everything, and we are predominantly restricted by our belief that we can or cannot do something. so im going to believe i can do everything, which potentially opens me up to far many more exciting experiences than people who doubt that something can occur, and doubt that they could do it IF it was real.

Written by: jeff

That's a popular sentiment in modern culture, but it isn't correct,

is that your opinion, jeff, or scientific fact?

Can you fly?

Written by: shen

Written by: jeff

Firstly, you cannot ever truely "know" (or know that you know, if you believe ou can "know") what anyone experiences.

if this is so, then how can you know that i dont know what anyone experiences? if you cannot know my mind you cannot know what i know, therefore, there is the potential that one thing can be known by more than one person? have you read about mirror neurons? i presume so, i have always thought you have been well-read and are intelligent and articulate (i have enjoyed observing your posts over time )

im not trying to persuade you of anything, by the way, just putting my thoughts up, i dont think im right all the time, and if i say something that you think is wrong, im fine with that, you know? just thought people might like to hear from someone who doesnt only postulate about these states of being, but rather, experiences and interacts with them on a daily basis...

Mirror neurons let you think that you know what a person knows, and you might actually be thinking the same thing. But you cannot truely know that you know what they know. After all, con artists opperate by tricking you into thinking that they aren't thinking about decieving you. It's a philospohical point that's never been countered, and one that will get bogged down in endless chains of "know that you know"s

Written by: shen

Written by: jeff

Something does not have to exist to not believe in it. I do not believe in the invisable pink unicorn, that does not mean the invisable pink unicron must exist.

but it exists as a thought-form in the minds of everyone who read that statement. just because it does not exist in the Physical realm does not mean it does not exist. do your thoughts exist less than your physical body because your mental/emotional bodies vibrate at higher frequencies? hmmm....! i dont think they do. i think, feel, see and experience that they exist Just As Much as our physical body, and interpenetrates it as a unified whole.

That's equivocation or different meanings of "exist", shen. The idea of a god is different from the physical or meta-physical existance of a god. Written by: shen

Written by: jeff

You must also accept the possible that it simply does not work, if you are being open minded.

i do. and perhaps it doesnt. but i know that it IS working for me, or rather, i am working with IT (perhaps there is no separation :P), and at the end of the day i am happy that you have been stimulated by this discussion and that you said what felt right to you, because thats what i've been doing... haha..

I'm not sure you've thought that one out

Written by: shen

i maintain and honour my experience of the duality of the subjective and objective realms. :P i thought it was obvious that subjectivity and objectivity go hand in hand.

and to cast some scientific validation on this situation, In the 1950's:

a Japanese researcher, Yoshio Nakatani, proved that acupuncture points had a lower electrical resistance compared to non acupuncture points. He later came up with Ryodaraku as a way to measure the electrical properties in the different meridians.

In the 1960's, a French researcher, Pierre de Vernejoul, established the existance of acupuncture meridians. He injected radioactive isotopes into acupuncture points and tracked their movement with a special gamma imaging camera. The isotopes traveled 30 centimeters within 4 minutes. Vernejoul also inected the radioactive isotopes into blood and lymph vessels and these isotopes did not travel anywhere. This reserach seemed to suggest that acupuncture meridians are seperate pathways in the body.

Two points:The first is that we need to do is carefully consider the "scientific validation" you cite. Have they been confirmed by other researchers, and generally regarded as correctly done and well perform? There is a lot of junk science out there, and it can be very difficult even for a specialist to detect it.

The second is that the physical reality of a "meridan" in the body, if it was real, doesn't really corroborate your point.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted:3rd Feb 2007just observing jeff, cause i have seen it more than a few times now, but it seems like if you don't like a fact, even if it is from a journal, you make up some reason why it isn't a fact. for example, some journals really aren't journals and therefore, the fact is immediately discountedwhy not just say you disagree with that statement, you scientists-as you put it-disagree all the time, it fuels experimentation and research

FaithNay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

just observing jeff, cause i have seen it more than a few times now, but it seems like if you don't like a fact, even if it is from a journal, you make up some reason why it isn't a fact. for example, some journals really aren't journals and therefore, the fact is immediately discountedwhy not just say you disagree with that statement, you scientists-as you put it-disagree all the time, it fuels experimentation and research

I'm afraid it's just a simple fact that some journals are nowhere near the standard required for the scientific community.

No scientist will take those journals seriously because they are not up to the standard required- the research they report is not up to the high standards required by scientific method.

This is not a 'pick-and-choose' matter- some journals are respected by the community, others aren't.

Those who disagree with scientific standards are free to dismiss them and pursue their beliefs regardless of those standards.

And I wish they would do that- have the courage of their convictions and just accept that their views are not scientific, rather than persisting in running down science and saying its faulty because it won't back them up.

To those who've got those kind of beliefs are truly secure in them- what better way to demonstrate that then to say 'OK, they're unscientific, but they work for me, so I'm fine with that'.

Whereas, running down those who helpfully try to explain what science is, would seem to indicate a degree of insecurity about those beliefs.

"You can't outrun Death forever.But you can make the Bastard work for it."

Posted:3rd Feb 2007incidently, Jeff- much as I'm backing you up in the post above, I do feel the need to point out (and I hope this doesn't cause offence) that some aspects of the way you post are pretty sure to put some peoples backs up.

A certain arrogance seeps through and I'm pretty sure that's part of the reason you attract some fairly hostile replies.

Of course, it may be that you're OK with that, but, at the end of the day, these discussions are supposed to be about communication and, when it comes to trying to pass on insight to those who have opposed views, the last thing you need to do is cause unnecessary annoyance, cos that just blocks communication completely.

"You can't outrun Death forever.But you can make the Bastard work for it."

just observing jeff, cause i have seen it more than a few times now, but it seems like if you don't like a fact, even if it is from a journal, you make up some reason why it isn't a fact. for example, some journals really aren't journals and therefore, the fact is immediately discounted

why not just say you disagree with that statement, you scientists-as you put it-disagree all the time, it fuels experimentation and research

I'm afraid it's just a simple fact that some journals are nowhere near the standard required for the scientific community.

No scientist will take those journals seriously because they are not up to the standard required- the research they report is not up to the high standards required by scientific method...

Those who disagree with scientific standards are free to dismiss them and pursue their beliefs regardless of those standards.

To extend a little bit on what onewheeldave is saying, within my own field there is a big distinction between academic papers/research and non-academic theory. I work in education, and at least when it comes to academia, there is a divide between what is deemed to be "education" and deemed to be "training". It is implied that because of the more rigorous research methods of academia, there is more value in "education" than in "training".

Yet no one who has seen the instinctive knowledge of a good "trainer" as they guide a class through a subject, recognising those who are lagging and extending those who require it, can deny that the knowledge, experience and skills there are real. It is just harder to identify what is really going on.

Having been inside academia, I will say that there is an awful lot of politics that goes into it. Sometimes this prevents knowledge from outside that sphere infiltrating inside (eg. A well researched paper that is not written in the appropriate style or with the right references not making it into publication for a particular journal).

Basically, just because knowledge and experience has come from a source other than academia, doesn't mean it is any less real (although it doesn't mean it is always right). And just because something comes from an academic source, doesn't make it right (and that doesn't mean it is always corrupt or wrong, either).

All you can do is rely on your own critical faculties to analyse the research and thought behind what is being presented.

Written by: robnunchucks

if people realy are phycic why do we not see any of them makeing use of it

Errrrmmmm, I suspect a lot of what you are asking has been answered by people far more qualified to answer than I. But my take on it is this:

- If a person has a power and is going to use it dishonestly (eg. winning lotteries or poker) they are not going to shout it from the rooftops and risk never being able to make money again.

- If a person has a power and has a code of ethics that stop them from using that power dishonestly, well... do I need to complete that sentence?

- We cannot determine if physic powers are real, let alone how they work. And I am yet to meet someone who claims to such reliable psychic powers that they believe they are 100% correct all the time. So why would a detective choose to use a method of investigation that is not wholly reliable and therefore is unlikely to stand up in court, even if there was a chance of getting the right answer?

- Just because a phenomenom can be duplicated using certain means, does not mean it was created using those means. (Although it does suggest that the phenomenom bears further investigation)

- Just because people who believe they have psychic powers can be fooled, does not make them wrong.

I'm not really on any side in this discussion. I smack bang on the fence (good ol' fence sitter me ). My main purpose in posting is to say that neither side has a monopoly on the certainty of their arguments.

It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.

What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...

Posted:3rd Feb 2007fine, he has a point, but he does this often, dismisses something as he sees it unfit for the world he lives in...i forgot which thread it was but...it doesn't matter because jeff doesn't really exist anyway

FaithNay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

it appears that whatever i say to you, you disagree with and have an argument for, so i am not going to reply to your reply.

i am not interested in attempting to show you enough information that you would consider adequate for you to allow something to be considered "real" in Your reality... who knows how long that would take? (rhetorical)

at the end of the day, i actually experience states of being that, it appears, from your words, you do not. you telling me something that i am experiencing is not Real because it does not fit into your understanding of the world is irrationally juvenille.

it appears that science is very unsure of the reality of the non-physical realms, concerning itself with the basest, densest aspect of our particular perception of the energetic spectrum. also, science is just ANOTHER way of looking at the world (and, predominantly, the physical world). the understanding of the nonphysical realms cannot be understood using the tools of the physical realm. science is not more right than other views just because it says it is.

i feel that someone who has not actually delved into this matter by practising some form of spritual practice, be it meditation, yoga, tai ji, prayer, or whatever, should perhaps attempt to understand it experientially before attempting to voice their opinion using purely theoretical arguments created out of a lack of understanding of the topic. because this is something you actually dont understand, is it, jeff? when the crunch comes down, you're arguing against this because it hasnt been proven?

do your own research (ie, talk with many people who have experienced states that you are attempting to invalidate, delve into the mysteries of meditation sufficiently that you experience altered states of consciousness, practice empathy, etc.... ), before attempting to advocate the degree to which something is "real" or not. it'd be like me trying to tell you that you're wrong about something that you know much more about than me.

anyway, what im saying is this: the aura (and that which it infers) is experienced by many people (its laughable, really, because everyone experiences it to a greater or lesser degree, whether they are consciously aware of it or not), and just because science has not amassed enough evidence for it to concede that it is real yet, it is Still real. but hey, science has only been around for a few hundred years. its still young, and is still learning.

learning that cultures such as the Chinese have been practicing energy-work for more than ten times as long as what modern science has been around, and have classical literature (ie more than 2000 years old) telling of the greater and lesser energy movements of our realm, that cultures such as the aboriginals of australia or the ascetics of tibet have spent thousands of years experiencing consciousness in the non-physical realms...

slowly science is catching up. and that makes me happy because then more people will understand ever truer understandings of reality. because there is always more to understand... we must ever discard our opinions for better ones.

im willing do discard Everything that i presently know to be true, through realising greater understanding. im willing to throw Everything away. i could die tomorrow, after all. holding on (even to opinions) will eventually lead to suffering when the time comes to let it go....

incidently, Jeff- much as I'm backing you up in the post above, I do feel the need to point out (and I hope this doesn't cause offence) that some aspects of the way you post are pretty sure to put some peoples backs up.

A certain arrogance seeps through and I'm pretty sure that's part of the reason you attract some fairly hostile replies.

Of course, it may be that you're OK with that, but, at the end of the day, these discussions are supposed to be about communication and, when it comes to trying to pass on insight to those who have opposed views, the last thing you need to do is cause unnecessary annoyance, cos that just blocks communication completely.

It's a constant worry actually, and I think it's unavoidable. It's human nature to view contrarian views as hostile or condescending, so there really isn't any way to tell someone that they're wrong without offending them if they choose to take offense. It's unfortunately true that this tends to be even more common in "true believers", who will often react extremely negatively to anything less than acceptance. Paradoxically this reaction tends to grow even stronger the less supported the belief is by reason.

For this reason I endevour to lay out the facts as far as I know them in plain English because I think it would be patronising to those involved to present the facts in any way other than plainly, even if it would avoid confrontation. Personally I think the taboo on challenging peoples opinions is ultimately pernicious, but that's a whole other topic.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted:4th Feb 2007shen shui....I don't anyone here's disputing the spiritual/emotional states that anyone can achieve through practicing ( for lack of a better term ) the paranormal. It's just that it's the paranormal that consistently ties to validate itself by crossing the line into scientific territory and science isn't going to just blindly accept anecdotal evidence without a fight.

The problems lie with the validity of the science presented. To the non scientific, creating an "institute" or publishing a paper is equally valid as what is considered to be "real" science and this is the point I've seen Jeff continually trying to drive home.

So ancient cultures have been practicing energy work for thousands of years,, yet it took modern science to eradicate diseases that had been plaguing those same cultures for those same thousands of years. eg smallpox, polio, leprosy.

I'd like to ask you...If you woke up with flesh eating disease tomorrow morning, what would you do ? visit an acupuncture practitioner, or call 911 ? given the nature of the disease, this should be viewed as an either/or question, not a try one and if it doesn't work try the other,,,like you would with something like chronic back pain.

Posted:4th Feb 2007but it might be able to help avoid the getting sick by boosting immune systems (i don't really believe in eastern medicine but i know some aspects are valid-natural =/= invalid ex: willowbark helps with headache which in turn became aspirin or acetomicin (sp))but jeff, people can disagree without feeling condescended...i hope brigit feels the same, but we have disagreed, and i do not feel any ill feelings like when you and i disagree

FaithNay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted:4th Feb 2007faithinfire...I totally agree..likewise I don't doubt the value of the placebo effect,,nor do I have any problems with what's referred to as "attitudinal healing" and it's possible effects on the physical body. As long as the patient knows what they're getting into.

I see the "alternative" healing arts trying to cross the line into science as a deception, especially when what's presented as evidence is junk science.

Willow bark yields a compound that becomes salicylic acid in your stomach, which can make you feel really sick in itself, but modern science tacked on an acetyl group to the salicylic acid to make ASA..or aspirin.

Posted:4th Feb 2007point being a natural (now labelled alternative) medicine can have valid benefits...i wasn't sure the name (it's been five years since that lab)i had serious doubts but classmates had peppermint oils that helped with my headache, had never heard of itchamomile helps me sleep, once again doubts but as an insomniac gave it a tryalso, acupuncture (needles-ewww) could have validity...i put foward the wet cool wash cloth on the back of the neck helps with nausea...we rub temples when we have a headachei think of attitudinal healing as prayer or laughter...are you thinking of positive thinking as attitudinal healing? not arguing just trying to make sure we are on the same page

FaithNay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted:4th Feb 2007Herbs are just unpurified drugs, faith. Either they work or they don't (and possibly hurt). We can test them happily so people can know if they are wasting their money or not. The other thing I think you're refering to are placebos.

This is getting now.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

I am thinking of positive thinking when I mention attitudinal healing. it's been years since I heard and explored the AH idea, but now when i google it I, come up with sites that offer to heal my attitude...fair enough. Another way to put it is I'm thinking of the direct opposite of stress induced illness, a topic which I haven't seen anyone dispute.

Do treatments like acupuncture and reki actually play a role in positive thinking your way to better health? maybe. I have a suspicion that this is where their true healing power lies. Likewise with all the other energy disciplines, if you believe..then maybe that's the key, but to skeptics like me who can do the whole positive thinking thing without guidance, trying to digest that these arts are on par with modern science is a tough sell indeed.

Posted:5th Feb 2007rozi ok the main jist of your argument seems to be that because its not 100% reliable it can't be tested to see if its real or not.

this isn't true we can very simply test such things all we have to do is show that they do better than random guess work.

BUT in all the tests and studys done over the last 80 years the phycics never do any better than you would expect from just random guess work in other words phycics perform no better than people just blindly guessing why should we beleave they have special powers when the same results can be acheaved by any random person off the street who doesn't have any powers.

also and most importantly can someone PLEASE explain to me why phycics only ever do things that can be done by magicians isn't that strange that everything phycics do can also be done by non-phycics

Posted:5th Feb 2007A cynic might say it's because psychics are fundamentally doing the same as magicians/conjurers

On the other hand, it could just be that any genuine psychic feats, by their nature of being unusual, are naturally going to be copied by magicians cos they perform stuff that's unusual and has audience appeal.

There are examples of stunts performed by magicians that doesn't detract from the fact that they are genuine skills.

For example, Houdinis speciality of escapism and mastery of locks- common magical tricks, some genuine and some faked.

But also genuine skills used in reality by criminals, lock-pickers, safe-crackers etc.

Just cos conjurers incorporate it into an act, doesn't necessarily mean it's not real.

The supporter of psychic skills would of course claim that, when a psychic reads a mind- they're actually getting info from the mind by psychic means, whereas, when a conjurer performs mind-reading, they're simply using one of many well established tricks that fake it.

Though I would agree with you that the fact that psychic skills can be so well simulated, is justified cause for seriously investigating claims that they are real.

Written by: robnunchucks

if people realy are phycic why do we not see any of them makeing use of it

Do treatments like acupuncture and reki actually play a role in positive thinking your way to better health? maybe. I have a suspicion that this is where their true healing power lies.

This is what came out of my research into Reiki at the Hospice... it definitely had an effect on the patients and made them feel better, even though the mechanisms for this remained unknown. I had to do a lot of reading on the placebo effect and all the different factors like attitudes, beliefs and settings, that can influence the outcome of a treatment. One study by Spiegel et al showed that a group of women who attended a support group for breast cancer nearly doubled their survival times compared to a group who did not receive such support.

It really is quite stunning how many different factors can influence the outcome of a treatment, wether drug-based or not. One thing that complementary/alternative medicine may be able to contribute to medical science is to promote a more holistic approach to health - caring for the whole person, not just the illness (which many good doctors and nurses already do, I know - but it is at odds with the old-fashioned approach of medicalisation which objectifies the human body).